William Property Pty Ltd v Baserite Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1605

William Property Pty Ltd v Baserite Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1605

Given transfers at undervalue to family members while proceedings were on foot and conflicting valuations suggesting up to $1.9 million in undervalue, there is a serious question to be tried that the property transfers were intended to defeat creditors. The balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction to preserve the assets, as no substantial prejudice to defendants was demonstrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List / Application to Vary Freezing Orders and Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary freezing orders and interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'variation of Orders' 'property Transfer at Undervalue']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['freezing Orders' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'variation of Orders' 'property Transfer at Undervalue']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Technology and Construction List / Application to Vary Freezing Orders and Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding transfers of properties to family members at undervalue while proceedings were on foot' 'Whether the interlocutory injunction over the Dursley Road commercial property should be lifted' 'Whether the freezing order carve-out for living expenses should be increased']

Ratio Decidendi

Given transfers at undervalue to family members while proceedings were on foot and conflicting valuations suggesting up to $1.9 million in undervalue, there is a serious question to be tried that the property transfers were intended to defeat creditors. The balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction to preserve the assets, as no substantial prejudice to defendants was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Application to vary freezing orders and interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The existing interlocutory injunction remains in place until final determination of these proceedings.' "Defendants' application to vary the interlocutory injunction and freezing order is dismissed with costs."]